Since the pandemic began, I’ve listened to more podcasts. I have this one podcast series that I listen to and though I don’t always agree with the conclusions that are made in each episode, I often find it to be useful in helping me view the world. The podcast describes itself as delving into overlooked and misunderstood parts of our history and society. One particular episode has stuck with me, and it has to do with specificity and connection in song lyrics.
The contention was that more listeners of popular music, connect on a deeper personal level to country music than they do to rock n’ roll. Some may disagree, but the episode did a great job of citing specific examples that bore the point out and then touched on how it affects the greater divide in our polarized lives.
Not to give a full recap of the episode, but one example here will help illustrate the broader point. They compared the lyrics of two songs that both had been written about a drug overdose. In the rock n’ roll genre they used the Rolling Stones song “Wild Horses,” which has an ongoing debate as to its lyrical roots, but many believe the lyrics are tied to a drug overdose between Mick Jagger and his girlfriend at the time. The lyrics speak in very generic terms about being by their side: I watched you suffer/ a dull aching pain/ now you have decided/ to show me the same and Wild Horses/ Couldn’t drag me away/ wild, wild horses/ couldn’t drag me away.
They compared it to a country song called “Boulder to Birmingham” written by Emmylou Harris for the loss by drug overdose of Gram Parsons (who ironically also recorded a version of “Wild Horses”). Some of the lyrics are: “I would rock my soul in the bosom of Abraham/ I would hold my life in his saving grace/ I would walk all the way from Boulder to Birmingham/ If I thought I could see, I could see your face.”
Do you see the difference? Both songs talking about similar things but one speaks in very broad terms (“wild horses couldn’t drag me away”), while the other says concretely “I would walk all the way from Boulder to Birmingham if I thought I could see your face.”
So why is the Chamber director bringing this up? Because it’s essential to every policy discussion we will be having over the next 10 years.
How we communicate has changed in the last five-10 years and we’ve become increasingly divided. Part of that is that we label everything instantly and draw deep lines of division, before much of the conversation has even begun. Instead of disagreeing on particulars and having nuanced discussions on how a policy could evolve, we hear words like socialist, racist, communist and sexist used regularly in policy discussions. You seemingly can’t make it a week without some newsmaker saying that some policy will be the “end of the democracy,” or is un-American or unconstitutional.
Woah, woah, woah, everybody take a deep breath. Those are gigantic culture-shifting phrases that should be reserved for only the most severe and reprehensible policies- which is to say that some policies may apply, but likely not all policies apply.
What we need to begin to do is speak on the specifics of a policy proposal. Too often I see business associations saying that a certain policy “will fundamentally change how business gets done” or that “it’s harmful to Maine’s business community” or that it “will hurt our employers.” These are all valid concerns, but they are far too broad to be effective.
When businesses are pleading for help with a proposed policy they need to say things, for example, like “this policy will increase our wage costs in the first four years by 83% which will force us to reduce inventory by at least 15% and we’ll need to replace 8-10 employees with automation.” Or they need to say, “this policy resulted in an immediate decrease of 43% in foot traffic on weekdays and 17% on the weekend, which reduced income for our servers by $253 per week.”
Those are just examples, but do you see the point? Both statements speak to something being harmful for business, but the latter statements are specific in the ways the policies impact their business.
As far as I know, no policymaker ran for their position to intentionally make things worse. They want to do what is best, but if we aren’t providing them with the concrete examples of effect, and we insist on talking in broad generalities and relying on trigger words, we’ll never convince others of our viewpoint. The specifics make all the difference, and you get double points if you do it succinctly.
Cory King is the executive director of the Southern Midcoast Maine Chamber.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
